No guns in house for probation/DUI

[chaim]

Those of you who advocate harsher sentences for DWI because you happen to know someone injured or killed by drunk drivers are not much different than the Brady folks who advocate stricter gun control because they happen to know someone injured or killed by gunfire.

Much different. They (the antis) are asking for tighter restrictions on law abiding citizens because a criminal broke the law. Those who want stronger DUI/DWI penalties want stronger consequences for those people who performed a criminal act. So, you really are comparing "apples to oranges" and not something in any way equivalent.

 

[bensdad]

I got a DWI in 1992. That was the last time I had a drink (missed the whole micro-brewery craze ). Learned my lesson in one shot.

I can tell the participants in this thread, from personal experience meeting thousands of people who had/have drinking problems, that the U.S. could stand for some harsher DWI laws.

I wouldn't say that offenders should have to serve lengthy jail sentences or have their lives turned completely upside-down, but the normal sentencing for DWI around here (MN) kinda lacks teeth.

To the best of my recollection, I served 40 hrs. community service, paid $115 in court costs, had a 30 day suspended sentence, lost my license for 6 months and watched my insurance double. Many people are not convinced to change their ways via this set of consequences.

To the offender: Do what the PO tells you. If he says you have to poop at 6:00am, you should be on the throne at 5:58 with a copy of Guns & Ammo in your left hand and a cup of coffee in the other. Once you get off paper, you can start thinking for yourself again. Arguing minutia with the man will, in this case, prove counterproductive.

 

[Frog48]

Much different. They (the antis) are asking for tighter restrictions on law abiding citizens because a criminal broke the law. Those who want stronger DUI/DWI penalties want stronger consequences for those people who performed a criminal act. So, you really are comparing "apples to oranges" and not something in any way equivalent.

I'd beg to differ. They are very much similar, both calling for tougher sanctions upon more-or-less law abiding citizens... as nobody is 100% law abiding their entire life.

DWI misdemeanants did not commit the act with malice aforethought; the vast majority are otherwise law abiding citizens. Further, DWI is not classified as a crime of moral turpitude. So it seems a bit "fast and loose" to lump DWI misdemeanants into the hardened criminal catagory.

I'm just sick of seeing the same ones arrested over and over and just getting slapped on the wrist

Now, when we start talking 2nd and 3rd offenses, throw the book at them.

 

[TAB]

I'm not condoning DWI, but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

Those of you who advocate harsher sentences for DWI because you happen to know someone injured or killed by drunk drivers are not much different than the Brady folks who advocate stricter gun control because they happen to know someone injured or killed by gunfire.

Same flawed logic, because objectivity is skewed when you're personally affected. When you have "a dog in the fight", you can never be unbiased.

Just something to think about.

I spent a year of my life learning to walk again thanks to a drunk driver... when you go thru that, then you can say its flawed logic.

 

[yenchisks]

i could fix this dui problem,1 dui 1 month in jail 2nd dui 2 months 3rd dui 4 months 4th dui 8 months 5th dui 16 months,you get the idea,they will bee sober by the time they get out.

 

[xd45gaper]

Anyone who gets caught DUI on a military installation will go see the federal magistrate.

maybe a civilian, military personell go see there commanding officer. i work with a guy that got a DUI on base, never went on his driving record but he lost rank.

 

[Frog48]

i could fix this dui problem,1 dui 1 month in jail 2nd dui 2 months 3rd dui 4 months 4th dui 8 months 5th dui 16 months,you get the idea,they will bee sober by the time they get out.

The penalties are already much harsher than that. The idea that people "get off easy" from DWI is just a myth. The consequences are anything but inconsequential.

For example, here in Texas, the typical punishments are:

1st offense DWI: Class B Misdemeanor. 1-6 months in county jail OR 1 year probation. 3-6 month drivers license suspension.

2nd offense DWI: Class A Misdemeanor. 6-12 months in county jail OR 2 years probation. 12 month drivers license suspension.

3rd (or more) offense DWI: 3rd Degree Felony. 12+ months in state prison. Permanent drivers license revocation.

 

[Pilot]

mt240sx,

Sorry to hear this and I hope things work out for you. Sounds like you learned your lesson. I had a friend get a DUI in California and the worst part was not being able to drive for six months. We don't realize how much we rely on the ability to drive. That alone would be punishment enough for me.

 

[chaim]

Quote:
Much different. They (the antis) are asking for tighter restrictions on law abiding citizens because a criminal broke the law. Those who want stronger DUI/DWI penalties want stronger consequences for those people who performed a criminal act. So, you really are comparing "apples to oranges" and not something in any way equivalent.


I'd beg to differ. They are very much similar, both calling for tougher sanctions upon more-or-less law abiding citizens...

Again, the antis say because Bob the Blood used a handgun to rob someone or shoot someone, you and I who have been law abiding citizens our whole life shouldn't be able to buy a gun, or if they are (ahem) the more moderate antis, we should have serious restrictions on what and how we can buy. Again, law abiding citizens being punished because criminals misuse guns.

Those of us who want tougher penalties for people convicted of drunk driving want tougher penalties for people convicted of a crime that far too many people (obviously) don't take seriously enough. Again, stronger punishments for the criminals who have been convicted of a serious crime that isn't treated seriously enough by most people.

Huge difference!

The penalties are already much harsher than that. The idea that people "get off easy" from DWI is just a myth. The consequences are anything but inconsequential.

For example, here in Texas, the typical punishments are:

1st offense DWI: Class B Misdemeanor. 1-6 months in county jail OR 1 year probation. 3-6 month drivers license suspension.

2nd offense DWI: Class A Misdemeanor. 6-12 months in county jail OR 2 years probation. 12 month drivers license suspension.

3rd (or more) offense DWI: 3rd Degree Felony. 12+ months in state prison. Permanent drivers license revocation.

Actually, the penalties are too light. First, in most of the country you only get jail time for a first offense (or even a 2nd) if you are so drunk you are slurring your words and can barely stand or if you caused an accident (and even then it often takes an injury to get jail time). The less drunk offender who was lucky enough to not cause an accident (this time) does not get jail time. Second, I'm not sure facing 1-6 months OR 1 year probation and only 3-6 months without a license is enough for a crime that seriously destroys peoples lives. Give home detention (so you aren't putting "petty" criminals in with the gang-bangers) for 6 months to a year in most cases, a year probation in most cases and a year without a license should do it to convince people that this is a serious crime that seriously endangers the public that needs to be taken seriously.

 

[chaim]

Oh, not sure how I missed this:

DWI misdemeanants did not commit the act with malice aforethought; the vast majority are otherwise law abiding citizens. Further, DWI is not classified as a crime of moral turpitude. So it seems a bit "fast and loose" to lump DWI misdemeanants into the hardened criminal catagory.

No one is saying they are equivalent to murderers and rapists. However, they have committed a serious crime with serious consequences. People are killed or seriously injured by someone who is "an otherwise law abiding citizen" who had one (or two) too many. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 40% of fatal crashes in motor vehicles involve drunk drivers. Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and injure someone every two minutes (around 17000 a year are killed by drunk drivers, or about the same as we lost in Vietnam every 3 years and 2 months) . This isn't a minor victimless "incident" even if the driver is lucky enough not to hurt someone.

Drunk driving in and of itself is a serious crime and one that makes you no longer a "law abiding citizen" but rather a person with a criminal record.

 

[Ctone03]

Sorry to leave you hanging MT240sx

I was reading some of the posts last night but didn't have much time to respond. You know how it is with getting the kid fed, bathed, to bed...etc. BTW, the one on the way is a boy.

Thanks to all who have replied.

In regards to those who want to crucify every DUI/DWI, I say that you are trying to use to broad of a brush. MT240sx made a mistake, for sure, but one that he learned from and has payed a price. I myself have made the same mistake when I got a DUI years ago. To call every person who is at the .08 BAC limit a drunk who deserves harsh jail time with no remorse is pretty silly. For those who have lost someone or something due to a drunk driver, I am sorry, and your particular circumstances deserve different punishment for the offender, but not every case of DUI turns out that way, and not every person who makes a mistake in life should pay the maximum punishment that you can imagine. I don't see how flaming someone for a past mistake that hurt no one solves the problem at hand, which is how to help a genuinely good person overcome something that may or may not be legal under the law.

I started this thread to find a solution to a problem because I personaly know MT240sx is a great guy; the kind of person I would do anything for. I believe that some of the responses to this post came to the same conclusion that I did in that MT240sx needs to talk to his lawyer because the PO may not be able to deny him of rights. I feel that telling MT240sx that he can't have weapons in the house for a "home inspection" seems pretty strange, and under MT240sx's circumstances I still don't see how a home inspection serves any purpose.

 

[Jamie C.]

The penalties are already much harsher than that. The idea that people "get off easy" from DWI is just a myth. The consequences are anything but inconsequential.

When I worked for the sheriff's office, a decade or so back, we had one "regular customer" that had twenty-one (21) counts of first-offense DUI on his record.

To me, that's like saying a woman is still a virgin after she's had sex 20 times... but apparently the law and the judges don't see it that way.

Anyway... maybe the penalties for DUI are strict enough.

If they were actually enforced.


J.C.

 

[Art Eatman]

A lot of off-topic moralizing, and a little good advice about the legal issue at hand.

Enuf.